And teach it in history class in the younger grades and in anthropology, sociology, and for the daring schools, philosophy, at the secondary level.
Anyone who objects can opt their children out of the class. Just like sex ed.
It is absolutely possible to teach religious awareness by teaching the customs without the dogma.
Your thought about morality in science is stickier, because it implies a concensus about what is morally acceptable research and what isn't. I point to stem cell research as only one area in which there is no such agreement, and yet we aren't talking about Nazis experimenting on the psychic bonds between twins by torturing one and observing the other. The topic of ethics in scientific research is better left for the secondary level. Elementary-aged children's studies on scientific ethics can be confined to honesty in reporting as the bedrock of the discipline. Everybody can agree on that.
Current Events » in reply to re: I don't disagree entirely. But how can you study history without understanding the role religoin has played in history?
Teach the history of religion, not the belief systems.
The whole thread (24 posts)
- Not just in Kansas any more, Toto
- There are about 15,000 school districts in America.
- Rural south-central Pennsylvania?
- I'm not a Republican because of manure like this.